Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I was following the debate before I came into the Chamber, including the Minister of State's opening contribution. The strategy document is very useful in many ways. If we are to take an evidence-based approach to the subject of diverting children and young people away from crime, there is very clear research both at home and internationally. Some of that is contained in the document. Obviously, this debate is more or less a follow-on from the debate we had last week on young people being brought into crime by adults. It is clear that a holistic approach is necessary, given the evidence of the damage done by adverse childhood experiences. We cannot, for example, welcome additional spending in youth diversion programmes on the one hand, and on the other hand turn a blind eye to the catastrophic damage that is done to children who experience homelessness, even for relatively short periods of time. It is really important that we do not make things worse by not taking an overall approach and recognising where damage can be done.

The first occasion I came across a child who was homeless was in 2013, and the numbers have been increasing ever since then. This child was sharing a car with her parents and I raised the matter in the Dáil. I fear that homelessness, particularly among children, has become normalised, and the sense of outrage and urgency seems to have abated. That is one of the key adverse childhood experiences that has been identified in research. It is most important that we just do not look at the future without looking at the present and where damage can be done. We are talking about catastrophic damage that will have a major social impact into the future.

Other adverse childhood experiences include poverty, family conflict and educational failure, such children being excluded from school. Excluding children from school may well be the convenient option for the schools, and on occasions we have seen it being overused, but in fact, it is incredibly damaging to the children. High crime rates and antisocial behaviour being the norm in particular communities are also adverse childhood experiences. We can really see the profile of it. We saw the impact on the north inner city when the Kinahan-Hutch feud was at its peak. Armed gardaí were on the streets regularly. Children were seeing that as a normal experience, when it is very abnormal. I completely accept that it was done to keep people safe, and I am not criticising the measure. However, I think that we have to appreciate that we are creating adverse childhood experiences in those kinds of situations. We have to find ways of balancing that out. According to the Evaluation of Youth Diversion Projects report:

Studies have shown that the more risk factors a young person accumulates in different domains, the greater the probability that he or she will move onto a trajectory of serious offending ....

The evaluation continues:

The profile of participants in the YDPs reflects the multiplicity of risk factors, with a recent study of young people in the YDPs revealing an 'alarming rate' of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) with 63% having four or more ACEs compared with 12% in the general population.

It is really is screaming out at us that the evidence is there. We need to address those issues. The Minister of State did say that in his opening statement, and mentioned taking a holistic and a cross-departmental approach. I recognise that.

The study urges the alignment of practices and policies with the needs of a traumatised population. If trauma symptoms go unrecognised or are misunderstood, behaviour may be mislabelled as challenging when in fact it is trauma. This echoes the point Deputy Ó Ríordáin made on DEIS+. Some very specific areas require particular attention because of the nature of some of the offences that are dominant in the area.

I opened by referring to a holistic approach. This requires investment but it also requires patience. The investment is required for generational changes. This does not mean we should not do it because we will not see results between one election cycle and the next. Children who fall into the group of life-course persistent offenders who start antisocial behaviour earlier and continue offending into adulthood are a particular group. This is a very tiny group for whom high-level intervention should happen. I do not think an eight-year-old child should ever be part of a criminal justice model. An entirely different approach needs to be taken. Look at the cost of jailing a person, perhaps multiple times over multiple years, and look at the cost to society. Some of this is captured in the document with regard to the cost of courts and legal aid. If we look at it from a financial perspective, it makes a lot of sense to have a high level of intervention where it is necessary. It makes even more sense socially and for the children themselves.

The report differentiates adolescent offenders where the offending does not continue into adulthood. This does not mean that the offending or antisocial behaviour is excused. It means that different responses are required. Some of this is about investing in good community facilities. The diversion programmes are not available to enough young people. There are very good people involved in them and I acknowledge this. Many motivated people are involved in many of these services but it is a postcode lottery in terms of the outcome of behaviour depending on the availability of services.

In 2013 the then Department of Children and Youth Affairs carried out a systemic mapping of intervention and of literature with regard to youth work. It found there was no internationally agreed definition of youth work but it identified and listed core characteristics. They include respectful relationships, informal community-based settings, good community facilities and building personal and social competencies and capabilities. These produce positive factors in a child's life. The protective factors identified in the report aligned with what is spoken about with regard to youth work.

There is a big difference between youth work and youth justice work. The practice might be the same but the purpose is very different. We have to recognise this. I recall being told by some young people in a north Kildare town that they had to get into trouble to do interesting things. This was because the youth diversion programme appeared to be very enjoyable. This is great but we do not want to exclude other youngsters because of an absence of community facilities. They identified this themselves and I thought it was very interesting that they said so.

Looking at my area, some 71,000 people lived in County Kildare in 1971. There are now 250,000 people living there. It is the county with the lowest age profile. It would not be terribly different from Meath or Fingal. I am looking at how some of the areas are being developed and it is row after row of apartment blocks and houses with not even green spaces. When we are looking to the future, we must look at how we are developing our communities. Building houses is pretty difficult but building communities is equally difficult. The resources have to go into sporting facilities, playgrounds and youth clubs if we are to have a positive approach to developing these communities.

There are some very good things in the report. The holistic approach is very good but it will require investment. We need a cross-departmental and multi-agency approach. We must not differentiate. Youth clubs should include everything and not have a bit here and a bit there. Certainly if a combined holistic approach were taken we would benefit and get far better outcomes. I commend so many of the people involved in the service who have children and young people at heart. We are not looking for criminal or antisocial behaviour to be ignored or for people to be mollycoddled. The approaches have to be different. If there is early involvement in antisocial or criminal behaviour that lasts into adulthood, we pay for it only financially on the other end. Those who are jailed pay for it and society pays for it in terms of the damage done. It is very important that we see this in its totality.

See this speech in context